Anyone using windows server 2003 for editing os?

[FiddlerMD]

I was recently educating on the various issues xp has with addressing memory over 3GB and noticed a bunch of people will install server 2003 (slightly tweaked) as their desktop OS.
I don't want to go into details of why they do this and such but am curious if anyone has done this switch for their editing machines and what the results were.
thanks

 

[pranic]

I used to use Server 2003 before I switched to Mac. It was way more stable (at the time) than XP. It does cost a significant amount more, though.

 

[FiddlerMD]

i don't have too many issues with stability (that aren't premiere's fault .. or some plugin's), but what about speed and responsiveness? server is supposed to be geared towards background processes (even if it's set to "program" in advanced settings.. the kernel is compiled differently from waht i understand) so i'm curious if you noticed any issues with general workstation performance

 

[pranic]

There is a setting that allows you to choose priority for either front-end or back-end tasks. I chose front-end, and made a number of other modifications to the user interface, shut down all the extraneous processes, and it worked very well. At the time (this had to be in 2003/2004), it was very stable. Since then, with all the patches and service packs for XP, it seems to have become even more stable. I can say, that 2003 felt more responsive, but that is a very subjective observation.

 

[FiddlerMD]

my main concern is memory utilization - i'm about to upgrade to 4 gigs and xp is notorious for not being able to use more than 3 or so. as long as things don't get slower and I have no compatibility issues, the memory fix is a worthwhile fix for me.